Skip to main content

Full text of "Poland Russia and Great Britain 1941-1945"

See other formats


ail we know—and he will not be entitled to vote. I would ask the Foreign
Secretary when he replies to deal with that point, and to tell us why that
peculiar expression " anti-Nazi" was put in that document. I suggest
it is clearly dragged in for this reason. There are no Nazis in Poland and
there never have been—they have no Lavals, no Darlans, no Quislings,
no collaborationists. Why then was this expression introduced into that
part of the document ?
I am now coming rapidly to my conclusion. I do believe most fervently
not only that we should continue to work with Russia but that we can
continue to work with Russia. But co-operation is not a one-way street.
There must be give-and-take in all these matters. We have not heard
Russia's case at all. The Prime Minister yesterday did not deal with Russia.
We have been waiting for the Russian case to be stated in this Debate,
but we have not yet heard it. There must be a case, because it must be
strong enough to over-ride four treaties and the Atlantic Charter, all of
which the Russian Government have signed. Let us then hear from the
Foreign Secretary what Russia's real case is.
The Prime Minister referred yesterday to Sir Eyre Crowe and Lord
Curzon who, in considering the Curzon Line5 said that it was a fair agreement
at the time. Neither of them however is here to give evidence., nor so far
as I know does that evidence appear in any of the documents or the telegrams
of the time. What did appear was the fact, the perfectly plain and established
fact3 that the Curzon Line was an armistice line. . . .
... I believe that when some of us tried to state the case on 15th
December in this House;, we stated what was true. Speaker after speaker
said that they believed—and we had an idea this was going to happen—
that the proposed treatment of Poland was wrong. Speaker after speaker
got up and, shrugging their shoulders,, accepted it, as it were, as a fait
accompli. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the Prime
Minister, who are such very good judges of the temper of this House,
must have known, in the course of that Debate, that the House was pro-
foundly uneasy and anxious. For all the good it did, so far as the Yalta
Conference which succeeded it was concerned, we might as well have done
absolutely nothing and spent the day in bed, because the views of the
Commons House of Parliament were completely and utterly ignored.
. . . We felt ourselves obliged to put down this Amendment, which,
broadly speaking, expresses our views. We did so with sorrow but with no
misgiving at all, because this is no small moment in history. The Yalta
Conference, it seems to me, is a curtain-raiser to the Peace Treaties that
are to come, and on those Peace Treaties will depend the whole future
of Europe and the world. Is this curtain-raiser to be a grim, grisly Grand
Guignol piece, followed perhaps by a happier and more joyous cavalcade,
or is it to be the forerunner of another grim and hideous tragedy ?
Commander Sir Archibald Southby (Conservative) : I beg to second
the Amendment. ... It seems to me that so momentous are the issues
involved by the Yalta Agreement, that where an hon. Member is dissatisfied
or apprehensive he must, before casting a vote or abstaining from voting
tomorrow, either speak in the Debate, if that is possible, in order to justify
his actions, or alternatively, put his name to some Amendment on the Order
Paper, which would indicate the point of view he holds. That is why my
name is on this Amendment. I do not have to remind the House that this
Debate is, perhaps, the most important which has occured in our time.
We must, of course, answer to our contemporaries for what we say and what
we do during these three days, but it is at the bar of history that we shall
really come up for judgment. . . . Surely, in a matter so far-reaching as
500